CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1991#8 most cited

What is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. authority for?

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

2,267

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. · Rule 19(2) Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules · appeal dismissed non-prosecution · appeal unadmitted · appellant non-cooperation · lack of diligence · opportunity of being heard · section 250 · appellate procedure

Also reported as

223 ITR 840

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 147Section 144Section 142(1)Section 148Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 25indiaopportunity of being heardsection 250nfacinteresttotal incomedocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

M/S. J.D. Automobiles & Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 291/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.289, 290 & 291/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.J.D.Automobiles & Allied Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3(2), 90, Madhavaram High Road, Chennai Perambur, Chennai-600 011. Pan: Aadcj 2101M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 234ASection 250

…the principles of natural justice. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution placing reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT V. MIs Multiplan India (P) Ltd in [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.72,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of incentive payable to dealer stating that the same is not recorded and paid to dealer. 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs…

M/S. J.D. Automobiles & Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 290/CHNY/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.289, 290 & 291/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.J.D.Automobiles & Allied Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3(2), 90, Madhavaram High Road, Chennai Perambur, Chennai-600 011. Pan: Aadcj 2101M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 234ASection 250

…the principles of natural justice. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution placing reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT V. MIs Multiplan India (P) Ltd in [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.72,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of incentive payable to dealer stating that the same is not recorded and paid to dealer. 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs…

M/S. J.D. Automobiles & Allied Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 3 (2), Chennai

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the

ITA 289/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Sept 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.Nos.289, 290 & 291/Chny/2020 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 To 2015-16) Vs The Assistant Commissioner Of M/S.J.D.Automobiles & Allied Income Tax, Services Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-3(2), 90, Madhavaram High Road, Chennai Perambur, Chennai-600 011. Pan: Aadcj 2101M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 234ASection 250

…the principles of natural justice. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution placing reliance on the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT V. MIs Multiplan India (P) Ltd in [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.72,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of incentive payable to dealer stating that the same is not recorded and paid to dealer. 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs…

M/S. Orisons Macro Management Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 124/CTK/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Sept 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri M.K.Patra, ARFor Respondent: Shri J.K.Lenka, DR
Section 144Section 194HSection 40Section 68

…sh adjudication Ld D.R. did not have any objection in restoring the matter. 7. After considering the submissions of both the parties, we find that the CIT(A) has passed exparte order following the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 on the ground that the assessee has failed to appear before him on the date fixed for hearing. We also observe that the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order u/s.144 of the Act in the absence of the assessee and the contention of the ld A.R. is that the assesse was in judicial custody during assessment proceedings. Hence, considering th…

Dinesh Kumar, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 39(1), New Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Appeal is allowed for

ITA 4004/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conference) A.Y. : 2010-11

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

…ursuance of appeal by respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan Indian Pvt. Ltd, reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). But we are of the view that no doubt that the Ld. First Appellate Authority has decided the appeal exparte assessee on merits also, but in the interest of justice the sufficient opportunity has not been given for substantiating the claim of the assessee by the Ld. First Appellate Authority. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are…

Deepa Lohia, Howrah vs. I.T.O., Ward-47(3), Kolkata

In the result assesse’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2094/KOL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Aug 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Hon’Ble Vice-(Kz) & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Hon’Ble(Through Virtual Court) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2094/Kol/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(C)Section 6

…reply was filed on the date of hearing before him. The learned CIT(A), therefore, opined that the assessee was not serious to pursue its case and relying upon the decision expressed by the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiple in India Ltd, reported in 38 ITD 320 dismissed the matter in limine. 3. It is pertinent to mention that subsection 6 of section 250 of the Act while laying down the procedure in appeal, specifically inserted the direction upon the Commissioner Appeals to dispose of the appeal in writing and to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision…

Sri. Sankararao Mavidi, Srikakulam vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Bangalore

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2346/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Jun 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.K Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014 – 15

For Appellant: Shri V Madhusudhan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DR
Section 250Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014 – 15 Shri Sankararao Mavidi, The Income Tax Officer, 1-223, Pedda Veedhi, Ward-1(3)(2), Tampa (vill.), Bengaluru. Hiramandalam (Mandal), Srikakulam (Dist). Vs. PAN – APDPM 9473 R ASSESSEE RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri V Madhusudhan, C.A Respondent by : Shri Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT – DR Date of Hearing : 08-06-2020 Date of Pronouncement : 11-06-2020 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order da…

Anuj Gupta, New Delhi vs. JCIT Special Range-17, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6215/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Prashant Maharishianuj Gupta, Vs. Jcit, K-094, Dlf Capital Greens Special Range-7, Karampura, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aeupg4450J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)Section 40ASection 40A(3)

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC-2”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Anuj Gupta, Vs. JCIT, K-094, DLF Capital Greens Special Range-7, Karampura, New Delhi New Delhi PAN: AEUPG4450J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Gautam Jain, Adv Revenue by: Shri M. Barnwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08/06/2020 Date of pronouncement 09/06/2020 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT (A)-17, New Delhi dated 29/05/2019 for the AY 2015-16, wherein, the ld CIT (A)…

Ritesh Malviya, Khandwa vs. ITO Ward 1, Khandwa, Khanrwa

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 268/IND/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 May 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata.Y. 2015-16 Shri Ritesh Kumar Malviya, Khandwa Pan – Awjpm0747K :: Appellant Vs Ito, Ward-1, Khandwa :: Respondent

Section 115BSection 143(3)

…l of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. This view is supported by many judicial pronouncements which are as under :- (i) CIT Vs. B. No. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (iii) CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2- However, in the interest of natural justice, I have gone through the assessment order and grounds of appeal. After taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, grounds of appeal at Sr.No.1 to 3 of grounds of appeal are hereby dismissed for the reasons that the facts and findings brought out by the AO in the…

Lipi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 15(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3699/DEL/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2020AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.S. Yadav, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 254Section 68

…ticed that the notice issued by the Registry through RPAD has come back with the postal remark ‘addressee left.’ Since the ld.CIT(A) in the ex parte order passed by him has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 (SC) and various other decisions, therefore, these appeals were heard on the basis of the material available on record and after hearing the ld. DR. 4. So far as Lipi Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, i.e., in ITA No.3699/Del/2019, th…

Sh. Harpal Singh, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 1022/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2020AY 2004-05

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishish. Harpal Singh Vs Ito S/O. Daulat Ram Ward-1(3) C/O. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, New Delhi Advocate K-70, Pallavpuram Phase-2 Post Modipuram, Meerut Pan Acpph5385N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ed. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal. 2. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Delhi)] and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], this appeal is treated as un-admitted and dismissed. 2 3. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02nd March , 2020. (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) JUDIC…

Cosmos Foundation, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1573/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: ShrI Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)

…ons and perused the material on record. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly show that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by applying the principles laid down in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). It is noticed that the learned CIT(A) had granted the assessee four opportunities. The assessee has given an explanation that non-representation was on account of certain earlier professional commitments of the authorized representative of the assessee. The reasons seem to be reasonable. In the circumstances, in the interest of natural just…

Cosmos Foundation, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1572/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: ShrI Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)

…ons and perused the material on record. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly show that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by applying the principles laid down in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). It is noticed that the learned CIT(A) had granted the assessee four opportunities. The assessee has given an explanation that non-representation was on account of certain earlier professional commitments of the authorized representative of the assessee. The reasons seem to be reasonable. In the circumstances, in the interest of natural just…

Cosmos Foundation, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1571/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: ShrI Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)

…ons and perused the material on record. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly show that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by applying the principles laid down in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). It is noticed that the learned CIT(A) had granted the assessee four opportunities. The assessee has given an explanation that non-representation was on account of certain earlier professional commitments of the authorized representative of the assessee. The reasons seem to be reasonable. In the circumstances, in the interest of natural just…

Cosmos Foundation, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Pune

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1570/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Feb 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Anil Chaturvedi

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: ShrI Pankaj Garg
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)

…ons and perused the material on record. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly show that the learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals of the assessee by applying the principles laid down in the case of CIT vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). It is noticed that the learned CIT(A) had granted the assessee four opportunities. The assessee has given an explanation that non-representation was on account of certain earlier professional commitments of the authorized representative of the assessee. The reasons seem to be reasonable. In the circumstances, in the interest of natural just…

K.R. Vijaya Raghava Reddy (HUF), Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(2)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1897/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri K. R. Vijaya Raghava Reddy (Huf), The Assistant Commissioner Of No.108, New No.67, Hal 2Nd Stage, Income Tax, Kodihalli, Vs. Circle - 1(2)(1), Bengaluru – 560 008. Bengaluru. Pan : Aafhk 7378 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Suman Lunkar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. Cit (Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 19.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.02.2020 O R D E R Per A.K. Garodiathis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-1, Bengaluru, Dated 27.06.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under:- Page 2 Of 3

For Appellant: Shri. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 54F

…him. She submitted that even in that situation, learned CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit instead of dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine by following the Tribunal order rendered int eh case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320. She submitted that under these facts and in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. She submitted that she gives an undertaking that if the matter is restored back to the CIT(A), proper compliance will be made befo…

Mesers S.B Global, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Offier Ward 4 (5), Amritsar

ITA 197/ASR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar05 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri L. P. Sahu & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kalia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, (D.R.)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 271(1)(b)

…arance in the course of hearing of the appeal. In fact, as is discernible from the order of the CIT(A), the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by him by drawing support from the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320. Apart from that, we find that the CIT(A) had observed that as the assessee had failed to comply with the notices issued u/s 142(1), therefore, the AO was justified in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. 6. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material availab…

M/S. Binco Constructions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1671/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm Assessment Year : 2013 – 14 M/S Binco Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Flat Bo. 129, Block G, Neeladri Mahal Apartment, Dcit Circle – 1 (1) (2), No. 45/9, Nandidurga Road, Vs. Bangalore Jaymahal Extension, Bangalore – 560046. Pan: Aaacb5719N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. K. Sudhakar Shetty, C. A. Revenue By : Shri Anurag Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.12.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Am:

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Sudhakar Shetty, C. AFor Respondent: Shri Anurag Srivastava, CIT DR

…the bench observed that the impugned order of CIT (A) is ex parte qua the assessee and in this order, learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by following the tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 ad there is no decision on merit. The bench pointed out that even in the ex parte order, appeal has to be decided on merit and since, it was not done by CIT (A), the matter has to be remanded to his file for decision on merit after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. 3. In reply, both sides agreed to this proposition put…

M/S R & M India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1667/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15 M/S. R & M India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner Of No.137/2, Service Road, Income Tax , Outer Ring Road, Vs. Circle – 5(1)(1), Banaswadi, Kalyana Nagar Post, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 043. Pan : Aaecr 6733 J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.11.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.01.2020 O R D E R Per A. K. Garodia, Am This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee & The Same Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-5, Bengaluru, Dated 12.03.2018 For Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Several Grounds But It Was Observed By The Bench In The Very Beginning That The Impugned Order Of The Learned Cit(A) Is Ex-Parte Qua The Assessee. The Bench Pointed Out That It Is Noted By The Learned Cit(A) In Para No.5 Of The Impugned Order That A Hearing Notice Dated 15.02.2018 Fixing Hearing On 06.03.2018 Has Been Issued To The Assessee But Neither The Assessee Nor Any Of His Authorized Representative Appeared Nor Filed Any Submissions & Has Also Not Made Any Request For Adjournment & After Noting These Facts, The Learned Cit(A) Has Followed The Tribunal Order Rendered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multi Plan India (P.) Ltd., 38 Itd 320 & Although, He Decided The Issue On Merit Also But The Same Is In A Very Cryptic Manner. The Bench Put Forward This Proposition That Under These Facts, The Matter Should Go Back To The File Of The Learned Cit(A) For A Fresh Decision, After Providing Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. In Reply, Learned Ar Of The Assessee Agreed To This Proposition Put Forward By The Bench Page 2 Of 2

For Appellant: Shri. S. V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, Addl. CIT

…of his authorized representative appeared nor filed any submissions and has also not made any request for adjournment and after noting these facts, the learned CIT(A) has followed the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multi plan India (P.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 and although, he decided the issue on merit also but the same is in a very cryptic manner. The Bench put forward this proposition that under these facts, the matter should go back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for a fresh decision, after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In reply, learned AR of the assessee agreed…

Smt. Rekha Ravish Kamath, Devanahalli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bengaluru

In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2035/BANG/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Sri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri. Manjeet Singh, Addl. CIT - DR

…r has been passed without giving proper opportunity of being represented by assessee as per law. He submitted that, Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed A.Y: 2016-17 the appeal for want of prosecution following decision in case of CIT vs Multiplan India Ltd reported in 38 ITD 320. 2.1. It has been submitted that Ld. CIT (A) posted the case for hearing only on 2 dates being 18/07/19 and 30/07/19 thereby not granted fair chance to assessee to represent her case. He thus requested for the issue to be sent back to Ld. CIT (A). 3. Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by authorities below. 4. We have perused submissions advanced…